Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

This is what the EU Referendum looks like to most people I can imagine? And so they also think this is what "Brexit" must/will also look like: From Leave vs Remain punch-up to UK vs EU pile-up?

"As I have said Brexit means Brexit and I firmly believe we will make a
success of it, not just for the UK but for our European partners too." ~ Theresa May, UK Prime Minister

A quick word: I've colour coded the above EXPLICITLY to match the two title "posters" (in this blog)

Next, a quick trip down memory-lane. Remember the detractors/"dementors" of Brexit originally posed it like this:-

Brexit = Not possible (impossible).

Brexit = Not permissible (even if a chance of possible then impermissible).

All of those qualities have been blown-away post EU Referendum. Today we're left with:-

Brexit = Poor. ~ Remain (extreme version)

Brexit = Big (if true!). ~ Leave (extreme version)

And hence May's remarks:-

"Brexit Means Brexit." - What?

"Making A Success Of It." - How? How Not?

What I want to point out is that pre-Referendum (1,2) were all about Brexit is not formulated so is either impossible/impermissible or both. The argument now is not whether it is possible to formulate it but about executing it: Mainly because various "groups" are at odds and hence "politically" either a poor version (EFTA/EEA) or a very very poor version are to be had or apparently from the other side: The poor version is not Brexit (not Big enough) and the poor, poor version (WTO) is Big!

Jesus Christ.

First, Brexit has been formulated (note this is not the same as executing Brexit):-

FLEXCIT is a full treatment or FORMULATION of "the problem of Brexit".

Bear in mind the talk at Dawlish (Red Cliffs of Dawlish name of this blog is derived from this day/presentation) was in Oct 22, 2014. ("big if true"!)Let's once again go over defining Brexit so we define the problem:-

Leave: What does "Brexit means brexit" mean to you? It means the above ONLY! I'm just the messenger...

Remain: What does "Brexit means brexit" to you? The preceding months have firstly meant "Leave means Leave" in case you didn't get the memo,hopefully by now you have. But you're hopefully now onto the second meaning finally...

Before then a quick recap to clear up the source of confusion:-

EU Referendum = Hyper-Emotional activity

EU = Intellectual subject of study

Brexit = Intellectual subject of study

For many people the EU Referendum was the equivalent of a slug-fest of words and feelings and of course not forgetting everyone's suddenly an expert on how much lying was going on, too. Well most people end up "shit-talking" to each other when emotions are up and it's more of a slagging off match than anything else. In the above "punch-up and pile-in picture" if you were to only see this fist-punching you might think rugby league just a big brawl and not a sport with rules at all...

And so it is with Brexit. Commentators spread their own confusion saying that Brexit cannot be anything else but a Brawl with no rules as per the EU Referendum experience. Fuck you all! There were rules from the careful formulation of the principles and details: You (pl.) just decided not to read the rule-book. I remember Dr. North pointing this out concerning Football: Everyone knows the rules but how many have actually read the rule book of football published by FIFA? So it is with the EU and Brexit and the Referendum on them: Just imagine how much more information is required in this formulation compared to football rules.

As stated the EU Referendum failed to follow the rules and the result was a bit like a nasty punch-up. All the major political organs conspired independently to achieve this result especially the rotten Legacy News-Media and the equally corrupt Westminster system of political representation.

If people have not learnt their lesson yet... then for a second time, if we look at the subjects of the EU and Brexit we certainly do have a full formulation of both of these (The Great Deception explains the EU and FLEXCIT is the superior solution from hundreds for Brexit Formulation with the EU):-

What does this mean for people?

We're going to see the persistent confusion on "EXECUTION" repeatedly dolled up: Just like for the past 2 years we've had neglect of FLEXCIT (ie formulation) so EXECUTION will dominate the Bullshit pumped out to most people. Hopefully it will act as a distraction for the idiots who confuse the emotional referendum pallava with assuming that will be the case with the EU too. On both leave and remain advocate sides. They will be entertained by the punch-up headlines in the media for years to come. I mean only today Sky news managed to drum up Oliver Ilott and Mrs. Barnham (some EU law expert) and just watch the total drivel on the execution speculation on exhibition: See Scribblings From Seaham for more on this tangent: Thought of the day – but not just for today.

Yes bullshit also won the Referendum. People were not fully reassured and hence we're stil stuck with the madcap politics of "execution" trying to placate multiple fractious groups.

Equally because of this, and because of the political system in the UK, our politicians will likely spend as much time attempting to navigate how to EXECUTE Brexit according to the groups and it will end up looking like a punch-up with the EU on the lines of the EU Referendum. Here the questions on how to make Brexit successul will feel interminable because people are not prepared to understand the formulation ie FLEXCIT.

In some ways this fits nicely: People get politicians to distract them with crap. Just look at any other nation and look at their crap politicians also. They're always a bunch asshats! They deal with the execution side of politics shepherding their flocks of sheep. Meanwhile the Civil Service will be or should be full of problem-solvers and they'll insist (Sir Humphrey style) on actually attending to the nature of problems seemingly thwarting democracy through technocracy: More on this from Pete North:

What more people could have been more aware of is "FORMULATION" which stands in for what Mrs. May has to contend with: Brexit means brexit. FLEXCIT successfully formulates the problem. The only problem left is how to execute this amongst different groups suffering various mass delusions.

Fortunately most of these people and most of these politicians can carry on their side-show while gradually the formulation's qualities end up being the only thing left worth doing in deliver "Brexit means Brexit" and "making a success of it" for both the UK and the EU and EFTA/EEA most likely too and perhaps further into the world, others as well.

Execution is ultimately up to the civil and intelligent contribution of the UK voter. It's curious but not unexpected that never before is the voter so "rich" considering access to finding out the relevant and applicable information to aid in understanding which choice to decide upon when voting and yet so few exhibit the "will power" to take up that opportunity. What we're left with is politicians apparently adding value and arranging the execution of decisions in the modern and bizarre way we consider "real politics":-

Monday, 29 August 2016

Dance music is one choice, but listening to these speeches before an exercise session might just be another choice to give the old adrenaline a booster?

I listen and read and think about the current "currents" in the legacy news-media and beyond, in other deeper sources of information on the current triangle between the EU, Brexit and the Referendum Campaign. The former two are indeed scholastic or intellectual. I think the Referendum Campaign was nationally hyper-emotional, and it's no surprise there have been reports of mass hysteria. Interestingly, I was watching some of the World At War Series as well as some of the series on World War I. These events that imbued the EU with so much of it's spiritual "guidance" as a matter of fact: Booker: the EU dies where it was born. I may have not mentioned it before but I am a great admiring of Booker's "book": The Seven Basic Plots. Moving on: I think am right in saying get the feeling that during the 1930's Germany went through the various stages described so well by Booker: The Dream Stage and such deep tragedy, The Nightmare Stage subsequently. Booker has long used this tool of filtering events, and I think you can see in his latest piece it's correct application (once again) concerning describing the leadership of the EU's reactions currently? Probably without stretching the theme too far, there's a draining away of will power about the EU... maybe.

Anyway, one of the interesting descriptions of Hitler's rise to power was his own powerbase was built on multiples of fractious groups only united behind a common cause or leadership on a very thin surface of support, perhaps a leadership with a great deal of "will power"? If you watch the clip (it seems slightly doctored to enhance the effect of his "hypnotic speeches" and the religious fervour they worked up in crowds of people) I think it's fairly evident that this is the effective message and promise Hitler offered Germany at this time? And the preceding details that created such an environment I think are easy to understand just how conducive they were to transforming the emotional state of Germany towards such a leadership outcome? It was all building all along.

As said, I listen, watch and read and think about the current situation and it's infernally complex and chaotic. There was a very interesting example of some of the emotions tumbling around about Brexit and the EU linked at EUReferendum.com in the comments:-

I'm not entirely sure how much of the above is a combination of emotional processing, pedestal pitching of emotions and other incontinent reactions. But there's some useful insights into how people are genuinely feeling and reacting to the dissonance of a result that is going to be difficult for them to apprehend given the build up of anticipation, expectation and the subsequent dissipation and negatively in this case. There's plenty of this sort of material all over the place. It also incidentally has it's corollary in the Leave supporters. What's tell-tale and this is repeated a lot:-

WHO?

HATE

FASCIST

Apart from the hilarious, unintentional joke about "I thought that would be America..." (!!). Most people are basing their reactions on the other side. For them the symbol of this other side (from the Remain perspective) is Haters which when given a political colour scheme becomes "Fascists!". We come full circle back to Hitler. And I think the myth begins here. The myth has taken over the reality (see: The Many Not The Few for a another (very different but still "Myth supplanting"). It's become a story about symbolizing "hate" taking control.

I think it's not this actually. It's much more accurate to consider it as a case of a beaten people in difficult conditions with all the usual fractious divides amongst so many people at such numbers, finding a political structure which pooled them together under the aegis of "Will Power".

If looking at the subject of the EU, there is The Great Deception. On Brexit there is FLEXCIT. But when it comes down to the Referendum Campaign there is none of this intellectual dimension. There's emotion and vying for groups and the politicians promising that "Will Power" will resolve all problems if only it is "lent" to them in sufficient number. And likewise, post-Brexit The Leave groups are all pomp and fanfare and prestige and crowing that Will Power is all that is needed for a successful Brexit. Coincidentally I believe this integrates into what Dr. North has suggested supplants careful reasoning: Brexit: the failure of feedback. When people are swept up in the tide of emotions outpouring from so many different groups, then the solution is will-power and any problems are grossly de-emphasized.

It's not just the UK, but the EU uses Solidarity which incidentally the Nazis also used of course. It's not that either political entity is "hateful" it's that they're both under the same pressures and stresses pulling in different directions in multiple ways, it seems to me. Inevitably the solution is always:-

"More solidarity/sovereignty, more EU/UK (or folk-strength), more will power!!!"

Could almost be a Hitler speech, eh?

I really want to get back to reading about Agriculture, Fisheries and the Environment, I've been collecting various bits of information. Considering all the above, there's so many different ways of talking about it, it ends up being the case that simply remaining silent is the best reaction, because it captures all the above without neglecting too much of it by zealously selecting only a small drop of this ocean of outpourings.

If there were more people more silently listening and considering more and then asking sensible questions about ordinary things some more, maybe the actual process of Brexit in light of understanding the EU (and it's deep origins back in history) might become a bit more apparent and a bit more of a priority, first?

Thursday, 18 August 2016

There's some amusing Brexit memes and some funny Brexit jokes. But the jokes that are reported from the various comedy circuits I've heard don't seem very funny, in my opinion, and secondly don't seem very accurate either. Generally I find jokes can be funny of themselves as an interesting sentiment without being accurate, but more rewarding when they're both funny and accurate in some insightful way.

In fact most of the jokes seem to be closer to the "Knock knock" formula: They're not really providing anything close to original or spontaneous and hence insightful. "Contrived" might be best word to describe them?

The first paragraph provides a useful summary of what I think is the established doctrine of those who predominantly control power aka "Political Orthodoxy" (in the UK known as "The Establishment"):-

"Europe’s newspapers were overwhelmingly negative towards Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, according to a review of the press in 13 countries in the week after the referendum. Most articles presented the view that Brexit was bad for the EU, would damage their own nation’s interests and would also be bad for Britain. Of the articles that discussed the possibility of following Britain out of the EU, the majority concluded it would not be in their country’s interest to do so."

The other interesting prevailing view in response to this:-

"However the majority view, across all political opinions, was that it should be reformed rather than be allowed to fail."

Back to "EU Reform" territory again, and yet The Great Deception goes into great detail as to the essential form this takes or to be clearer it's such a generalism as to be a form of falsehood much more than a form of concrete solution.

However, all of this is secondary. What's of real interest:-

"In the UK analysis, of the three newspapers studied (The Telegraph, Guardian and Daily Mail) two had backed the leave campaign, yet coverage after the vote was mostly anti-Brexit (39%), 27% pro-Brexit and 34% neutral."

I think what's useful is that what is only apparent is the value-score of the papers cumulatively:-

Emotionally Good (positive)

Emotionally Bad (negative)

Either Good and/or Bad or Neither

In effect, the legacy news-media is most likely not very useful for increasing understanding of people beyond emotional means and using the stock tools (pro vs con, authority vs opinion, fancy presentation, consensus of orthodoxy etc). Hence most people relying on this form of communication are most likely to only be emotionally engaged in the Referendum.

I think I'm on the right tracks here and I can perhaps give some examples:-

Before the Referendum the Environmental Groups and Universities for example were very clear that Brexit would be bad for Britain. But given the chancellors' recent recommendations their fears appear to be allayed to a major degree. By comparison, the promises of leaving for "leave voters" such that "control of our borders" was clearly going to massively improve the "immigration problem", I suspect this is the area of politics that is being worked very hard on in it's presentation and delivery to people to reassure them that it too has been handled or will be. The problem is however that these voters only hear what they want to hear (like most voters who require persuading) and so the solutions must be packaged into a form of emotion that makes it acceptable or palatable: Namely stoking up the very grave dangers of Brexit and reigning in expectations a bit like angling and tiring out a fish before pulling it out of the water.

If you look at the reporting in other nations, very very few are in the "grey bar" category. But I wonder what the actual feelings of people is? The danger for the EU is the idea of "contagion": It seems a strong motivation to impress upon people and institutions that "Brexit is foolhardy" such as the FT.com and Guardian are doing such a wonderful post-Brexit job of catering towards, along with the equally charlatan The Economist. The Express on the other hand demonstrates the bias-supporting of "Immigration-ultras" who are so invested in stopping Migration they've given up with solutions and shout slogans with redoubled energetic displays of zeal towards this cause. The opposite but equals of the "catastrophizing" voices in the FT.com and Guardian and elsewhere. All they're doing is adding to the emotional aggregation in the Legacy News-Media.

If there is a conclusion, then I think these banal jokes, only indicate the "joke is on the people" and the dance macabre of emotion that is the beat of the legacy news-media (the so-called life (free press) but closer to death of democracy) and the level of actual democratic engagement achieved in the UK. The 78% or so of turn-out may be "the highest since whenever..." but like the legacy news-media, all it merely records is the attempt to stimulate enough people to feel emotional about a subject to record "democracy in good health" when in fact all it's doing is suggesting democracy in it's present form is merely an exercise according to two simple parameters:-

Stimulate enough of the population to take a few hours out to officially record a vote for the statistics of the exercise to increase it's "validity".

Given democracy at such scale of millions, to provide so many ignorant and emotional people with a format of participation which mostly can be counted as "satisfactory": Their numbers may be great, but their actual input into the relevance of the arguments is significantly tiny.

In my opinion, the beginning and end of democracy for people is within the contraints of the legacy news-media: Good or Bad or Both (more or less or equal) or Neither. That's about as good as it gets. For consolation, the Think Thanks are little better... for example the complete nonsense that springs up, dominated by the same Orthodoxy mentality (irrespective of the people or their professed positions):-

However another consideration that is worth looking at form this research on the European Journalists reporting of Brexit:-

"Despite the anti-Brexit views in western Europe’s quality newspapers"

There's the implicit assumption that these newspapers actually are adequate let alone not inadequate! In fact they're more: They're superior quality (see below by contrast to the tabloids!). This is in my opinion a fatal flaw of this study indicating yet again the "Orthodoxy" at work.

"In general coverage in tabloid and popular newspapers was more
superficial and often focussed on issues such as immigration, racism and
migrant workers in the UK."

Yes, as above, a question of "by degree" and "relative to what?". Overall the service of newspapers is EMOTION (see below again).

"Most of Russia’s domestic coverage consisted of “short news about
Brexit-related events without providing interpretation or authorial
comments,” said Andrejs Berdnikovs, editor of EJO Russia. Berdnikovs said that while overt political statements were avoided, the media coverage was selective."

The problem about accusing Russia of doing this is again comparing Russia to more sober and impartial press in the West. However, the experience I have of the British Press in particular is that they're a closed shop commentating in their own little bubble amongst themselves, excluding and actively building "walls" to communication expansion. When they do include it's as a prop to then reinforce future exlclusion via direct "dismissal": See EUReferendum.com: Brexit: Newsnight.

"The negative tone is also reflected in headlines that included words
such as fear, anger, frustration, chaos, panic, turmoil, populist
revolt, confusion."

The FT.com and Economist may not be as explicit but they've tended this way also. I suspect tabloids boost "political participation" and serve a useful role to the Orthodoxy at the same time as our betters "crying oh the shame of the daily mail, mirror, express and sun!". Nothing is worse than being ignored, not even those tabloids' headlines! One of the interesting things however: Scared To Death.

"The negative way Europe’s news media reported and presented the outcome
of the UK’s referendum indicates how the issue might be discussed in
national public arenas in the future, according to Dr Raluca Radu, of
the University of Bucharest and Director of EJO Romania."

The best joke I heard on Brexit is in this article, and it's not really a joke... but it 'sort of/kinda' is:-

"Berdnikovs said that while overt political statements were avoided, the
media coverage was selective. “The decision of which quotes to use was
dependent on portals’ ideological stance. Thus, conservative REGNUM
tended to present an atmosphere of confusion among ruling European
politicians, normally trying to make Pro-Europeanists sound naïve and
trivial (“Moldova should strengthen efforts towards European
integration, because it can bring Moldovan citizens welfare, social
solidarity, good laws and respect”), but eurosceptics – witty and wise
(“The EU is a project with a past but without a future”),” Berdnikovs
said."

I'm not seeing any difference (apart from role reversals) in the Russian Press than the European and British Press! I guess those in the Orthodoxy of politics are much more similar to each other than they care to admit?!

"No
tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending
authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government
except with the express approval the majority of the people, renewed
annually on presentation of a budget which shall first have been
approved by their
respective legislatures; "

Irresponsible it was by Vote Leave to bang on about £350 million figure because it's a lie. But the underlying message of "Who the hell gets to have a say on how our money is taken from us and used by who for whom," probably was an attractive underlying idea to people? Well The Harrogate Agenda attempts to promote this question further and more honestly than Vote Leave or the Luvvies. In the previous article I argued concerning the importance of data especially on the health of our Sovereign concept of Britain/UK. This flows "upwards" to inform our policy (compare freely spending billions on foreign policy wars). In this blog I've ended with a suggestion that Brexit was probably driven by a keen sense that money which should flow "downwards" from first setting good policy, is sensed by people not to be doing so, but to being abused and wasted and indulged by those who are in power and share the same "Orthodoxy" supported by the major institutions predominantly: Legacy News-Media, Universities, Entertainers etc all siphoning off their share of money while it slowly becomes clearer and clearer the policies made are "bad" while "economic recovery is just around the corner" (good?).

- Simon Gooderham, director of rural surveyor and estate agent, Cheffins, says predicting the long-term impact is difficult, but that the result could impact on farmland lettings and sales markets

- Ross Murry, president of membership organisation for owners of land, property and businesses in rural England and Wales, CLA believes farmers and rural business will create opportunities outside of the EU.

- Sean Wensley, president of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), thinks the UK’s decision to leave the EU will have a “significant impact” on veterinary regulation, education and animal welfare.

I've included some extra links expanding on the summaries provided for Environment, Wildlife and Agriculture. Of additional note, the Rural Policy (Joint-Up Policy) and Veterinary (Regulations specifically).

Instead of rehashing all the above information to tentatively consider:-

It's short-hand to put all the above policy areas into a simple question: "How much money do they get in the EU and how much, more or less, do they get out of the EU (Brexit)? Very convenient.

Distinguish: The data on the arguments themselves for or against Brexit and how this supports or detracts from this new position. Compared to the opinions of the people who work in these areas and deal with both: Data and Money.

To consider again distinctions: Each policy has it's own priority (here they merge as they're related) but each fits within the total policy vision: The democratic Brexit vote to Leave. On both counts sub and super have to fit with each other.

Information gaps and biases will likely have to be identified inter-distinguishing the policies above as well as their intra-distinctions. Good policy will do this and move on. Politics will temper good policy possible of course.

Complexity is highly apparent in these areas.

Ignorance in most of the public is highly apparent for these areas. This also applies to the Legacy News-Media and our professional politicians too.

There's some really good information in all the above. But as you can see in the summary considerations there's a huge tangle to contend with. It's highly confusing and complex. However applying our ever trusty context:-

If you read FLEXCIT and these chapters on these policies, you'll notice that the research considers both the policy itself as well as the surrounding politics. A major part of the policy is regulations from our EEA "members of" (as opposed to "access to" (FTA)). Secondly the common theme within FLEXCIT the work itself is the second tier of origin of this at global level of regulations and interactions between tiers (including domestic), which is mentioned in Dr. RAE North's most recent monograph series:

"As to whether the UK would gain any relief from leaving the EU – even supposing the Government could be prevailed up on to repeal the CCA - one can compare its situation to that of a victim in a horror movie, trapped alive in a coffin. Having broken through the lid in a bid to escape, he finds to his consternation that there is another lid. This "double lid" is, on the one hand, the EU treaty obligations and, on the other, the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol. Breaking through the EU legislative layer simply reveals the second "lid"of the Kyoto Protocol."

"There is a distinction and, quite rightly, the point raised about agriculture is a very serious one and one that has not been properly addressed. When it comes to the Doha Round etc. on the negotiation of quotas and also subsidies, and subsidy caps, these are held not by individual member states but by the Commission. Therefore, theoretically, when we leave we will not be able to subsidise our farmers unless we negotiate a settlement with the EU as to an apportionment of the subsidy cap.

Likewise, on quotas, the quota is held by the Commission, and therefore there will be a negotiation. One can imagine a trade-off where some of the member states will be quite anxious to offload as much quota, say beef quota, as they can on the UK as a condition for our exit. We would find ourselves unwillingly forced to take that as a quid pro quo for other concessions. This is an area that is quite possibly going to be time-consuming."

This itself is another level above the actual policy itself, the negotations framework adding complexity itself concerning Agriculture and Brexit at this level.

Familiarity built over time helps create an intellectual architecture or context without which it's likely these regulations feel horrendously alien and unfathomable. Some comparisons to graphics of data can maybe help visualize what these regulations are supposedly designed to achieve, I hope. We can use the excellent European Environment Agency website's resources:-

Here's the Interactive Data Viewer page from which the above snap-shots are merely an indication of. You can see there's vast amounts of data information gathering that in turn fuel our activities: Agricultural policy (natural variations in production and trends); social policy connection education research for people on these issues and so forth such as Biodiversity indicators or chemical pollutants in the EEA groups.

It's worth looking at Europe as a map of people additionally; from wikipedia:-

Population Density Map of Europe

The statistic given at the European Environment Agency on Agriculture (land use and budget):-

"Farming has a big influence on Europe's landscapes and the quality of its environment. With farmers managing almost half of the EU's land area, the agricultural sector is a major source of pressure on Europe's environment.

Over the past five decades, the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - accounting for around half of the EU budget.

Farmers represent only 4.7% of the European Union's (EU's) working population, yet manage nearly half of the EU's land area. Farming has a big influence on Europe's landscapes and the quality of its environment."

So there can be little mistake that Agriculture is a huge policy area that also interacts across a wide range of other related policy areas (Environment). Europe itself is a highly populated and high density continent which therefore requires high food security and high environmental impact. All of this is ripe for regulations and the use of data to construct policy. To quote FLEXCIT Chapter 12.0 Agriculture:-

Agriculture in the UK (EU/EEA)

"The second policy we look at, in this fourth phase, is agriculture. The food and farming sector is important to the UK economy, with the whole food chain contributing £85 billion per year to the economy and 3.5 million jobs. In policy terms, it is dominated by the European Union and its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Financially, this is the most important policy in the EU. It is also the most complex, made more so by the need to ensure conformity with WTO agreements."

Agriculture In Norway & Iceland (EFTA/EEA)

"However, while the EU average total subsidy is about 18 percent of farming income, Norwegian farmers gain just short of 60 percent, only just ahead of Switzerland, while Iceland farmers are paid just short of 50 percent. In other words, those European farmers who are outside the EU benefit from much higher subsidies than those within the European Union."

Agriculture In New Zealand (neither or "global trade/WTO meme")

The "poster child "for advocates of subsidy-free farming is New Zealand, the government of which in 1984 abruptly terminated farm payments, ostensibly driven by a commitment to the free-flow of global market forces. Expected outcomes were improved economic efficiency and more effective use of land. But the changes occurred outside the framework of a coherent national policy for rural development, resulting in diverse and unexpected outcomes.

The reason to quote these comparative "pictures" directly from FLEXCIT (once again with huge gratitude) is to come back to that question of "Money" mentioned at the beginning. It seems to me whichever way the UK chooses for the Agriculture Policy, it's a policy that is particularly sensitive to subsidy or social consideration not only capitalist consideration: Namely it's multi-dimensional where money is one dimension only and not even the bottom-line: The Environment I suspect is?

"The starting point of the Paterson review was the recognition that, prior to UK entry to the EEC, the British fishing industry had been a model of sustainability. Yet, after decades of the CFP, areas of the most fertile and productive fishing grounds in the world were being threatened with closure. Others were producing yields well short of their potential capacity, whilst ever-increasing restrictions were being imposed on British fishermen."

"Therein lies the essence of the post-exit settlement. Leaving the EU, per se, is no solution in itself. EU policies require individual replacement, each with something better. And fisheries provided a useful example. Largely self-contained in policy terms, it is a test bed for policy development, and as an example of the complexity of the repatriation process."

"One of those wider issues was the protection of the environment. It was argued this was not incompatible with safeguarding the fishing industry. Over-fishing and other abuses damage the marine environment and also damage the long-term economic value of a fishery. Therefore environmental protection was regarded not as an adjunct to a fisheries policy but as an inherent part of it."

"As far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental principle on which a policy should rest is that the fish and other sea creatures within the UK EEZ are the property of the nation as a whole. Custody of that resource lies with the central and devolved governments. Fishermen have no inherent rights to the fish and other aquatic creatures in these waters and no inherent rights to the property so gained. There is, however, a distinction between inherent rights and acquired rights."

More discussion on monitoring and collection of data: FLEXCIT 13.7 Enforcement, monitoring and sanctions

If we look at the last paragraph and look at the map of Europe above, we notice that nations are different from each other, they're also "non-uniform distribution" in people, resources and of course cultural developments. In effect they have different needs from each other as well as holding some things in common, given we're all people of a common species to be scientifically accurate. Equally concerning dealing with this historic situation of nation states, the reality of the environment or part of the world we share must be managed to everyone's benefit. It probably serves policy in a more superior way when:-

We use good data to understand our impact on the world

We take responsibility locally on our place in the world

We collaborate with our neighbours to meet mutually beneficial outcomes on the above.

It's interesting, given the post-Referendum reaction. Before, the various stake-holders in these policy areas, apart from Fisheries, would likely be resistant to the idea of change and reconsideration. Given the result, there's a shift in tone from these groups: They want to seize the positive opportunities and avoid the negative dangers and emphasise this combination of "vector and velocity".

The points I tentatively consider above, I think we now reach the question of information/misinformation, confusion/ignorance:-

2. And on the other hand we have other opposite groups such as ex-leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage:-

My heart F*! bleeds for these groups (on Immigration read Scribblings From Seaham: Integration): It all fits within the idea of layers of different communication described in the previous blog as if it were a rainbow:What People Don't Want Is Not To Be Not Confused. I can't be bothered to describe the sentiments and hyper-emotionality. There's so much in FLEXCIT I would like to include and discuss in this blog but for the sake of brevity and communicating a few basic ideas (the bullet points at the beginning) and then trying to provide the research and reasoning behind those tentative considerations; it's time to finish this blog and before long move this post's content to a new website and focus even more specifically on this area, usefully in connection to Brexit.

For Friends of the Earth (money and their prebuilt political constituencies), for The Guardian likewise and for Farage/UKIP once again. But are they actually communicating anything of actual value?

"The forestry sector contributes some £1.7 billion a year to the
economy and indirectly supports 43,000 jobs. Woods and forests,
particularly ancient forests, provide many environmental benefits
including enhancing biodiversity and supporting a range of ecosystem
services such as water management and climate control. In addition, forests provide recreational and amenity value to society."

Even within the above policy areas and then within a sub-policy of those: Forestries we see whether or not we're asking the right question and in the right order and concerning the specifics of the policy and it's complexity (and groups' own political colours). Interestingly, if you read FLEXCIT and on 12.0 Agriculture, Forestries is a component that demonstrates the flexible and continuous properties of FLEXCIT as a plan very well:

"This did not stop the agriculture council discussing the EU's (then) new forest strategy, which aimed "to cut through the mass of rules governing the protection of forests". That strategy was announced on 20 September the day after the ECA's report, with a 17-page report calling for a new forestry "framework". The document conceded that, in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, there was no reference to specific provisions for an EU forest policy.

Thus, on technical, financial and legal grounds, the UK could disengage, without prejudice to other programmes, and without any significant political implications.
"

It's time to stop whinging uselessly or indeed reading the click-bait Legacy News-Media but if one considers themselves several things:-

A Voter

A Voter with an especial interest in a specific area

A Voter who has a set of skills, or even the time and energy alone

To then as our Prime Minister Theresa May said, "Make A Success Of It" [Brexit]:-

This is far more useful if people take this upon themselves (millions who can do so than) relying on the voices of "experts" (check: Are they experts or authorities? Are they secondly the applicable experts to the problem?!) who are still bumbling around concerning the merits or perils of "Brexit Options" as perhaps more adeptly handled but still stumbling around in this discussion concerning "Least-Worst Fashionable Opinions". This has been mentioned recently over at EUReferendum.coma number of times recently... .

Monday, 1 August 2016

It becomes onerous to bang on about the "bubble effect" of politics. But it seems to work: On one side I have friends who give their primary or first reason for "Leave" because the UK is too small to fit any more foreigners and on the other side friends who give their primary or first reason for "Remain" because without those same foreigners our NHS would fall apart! What is interesting is that these reasons don't actually belong to either set of friends: They're parroting what they've heard in accordance with their baseline sentiments, most likely. And so evidently the drumming of various bespoke "memes" or messages along "sales pitch lines" seems effective for sheer scale of message distribution. So much for lies and campaigning.

So instead of a destructive picture, a rainbow feels like the kind of picture full of hope and a positive outcome to all these dark clouds of confusion in the political conversation around the entire UK's chatting people. If you look at the rainbow it consists of layers of colour:-

Interestingly Wikipedia points out the origin of the colour number/order:-

"Newton, who admitted his eyes were not very critical in distinguishing colours,
originally (1672) divided the spectrum into five main colours: red,
yellow, green, blue and violet. Later he included orange and indigo,
giving seven main colours by analogy to the number of notes in a musical
scale.Newton chose to divide the visible spectrum into seven colours out of a belief derived from the beliefs of the ancient Greeksophists,
who thought there was a connection between the colours, the musical
notes, the known objects in the Solar System, and the days of the week."

Layer 4 Reaction and inflation of "noise" by the respondents reacting to it:-

In this case the noise production by this article can be observed in part by reading the FT comments, presumably written by well-meaning observers in the public (there's always astroturfing and bots and seeding). Here it does seem that Jenkins attitude is being called out. No doubt in other similar media, such as SpikedOnline! or The Daily Express, his comments will be championed. It's interesting that this time the FT ran the article, which usually along with it's stable mate of bs The Economist runs Economic FUD as it's main narrative against political change. Perhaps the obviousness of Jenkin is too good an opportunity to miss?

But this is still a problem: Nowhere does the FT investigate or build the knowledge base from the primary sources: It along with the rest of the accursed Legacy News-Media is merely "reporting" and selecting hot air from Jenkin. One of the major functions of newspapers is to confirm the biases of audiences: The "eurosceptic industry press" on "bonfire of red-tape" has been accused by Remainers of decades of indoctrination of voters that partly "explained" the Referendum result by the "old, left-behind, low income, uneducated, rural" blockheads in the UK!!!

Delusional:-

The systems of informing the public/voting base, especially the Legacy news-media.

The representatives in professional politics working between these layers to sell "memes" into peoples' heads effectively at scale.

The "white noice" amplifying this confusion.

If taking a step back and considering politics in the UK: The above are the prevailing conditions. It seems to me it's much easier to communicate what people DON'T WANT than to suggest what the NATION NEEDS according to the parameters of the actual arguments in politics; and hence the lure of incredible stupidity that "people are too stupid to be given a referendum on this issue!" that tempts some commentators. But there is an underlying reason why that is tempting: It's that in general people prefer confusion and this itself is the bread and butter of the successful politician in our society: It seems to me this explains why are loathsome politicians are so extraordinary slippery and able to aggrandize their positions in our society so successfully: Pay rises, expenses, rubbing shoulders with the prestigious, able to say what they like on the podiums and platforms devoid of the actual arguments:-

It's more effective to tell people what they don't want than to present the rigourous research on what the nation needs: Few will make the effort to understand and fewer the effort to promote this as evidenced by this Referendum.

They know people need to be confused and enjoy being cajoled in shaping their own preconceived biases; hence why politicians are so fashionable so long as their lies are clever or charming and appear to align with their followers' values. Equally the repulsion of those that do the same thing on the other side, is perhaps doubled! Those "filthy remainers/leavers!"

(02/08/2016) Within this mongraph is the direct reference to the government's "White Paper" 'on' Article 50. The monograph itself covers a lot of the framework of thinking around this subject that's needed to contextualize as much as searching for "definitive content" on the reasons why Article 50 is the actual Withdrawal process for the UK from the EU.

So not only do we have the legacy news-media creating crap upwards, it forces downwards crap from the confusion around people too. Evidently this is stimulating to people; particularly the peculiar sentiment above I've tried to capture. Fortunately the odd comment recognizes this and injects some common sense:-

Meanwhile right at Layer 0: Some technical trade discussion is provided in the latest monograph clearly splitting the confusion of "Treaty Politics or Relationship Expectations" from "Trade Technicalities or Practical Progression". Brexit: Monograph 5

This is more applicable to Leavers to appreciate: The Relationship argument was right to reframe but the technical details and Trade arguments come later, don't mix the two foolishly or you'll heap on confusion (apparently preferred by most people....)